I'm just going to er... revive my own thread here slightly which is simply to say well regardless of how people feel about the ME3 ending the ME3 game and trilogy as a whole I thought were quite impressive. It was just so... like... epic and a lot of the characters and NPCs were really likable. I don't know like you have Hackett and he's just this like inspiring war general guy but you know he's compassionate also and even though he's making tough decisions he doesn't really always show the compassionate side but it's definitely there.

It's the same with a number of other ME characters, overall they just are pretty interesting and kind of make the experience better, all those interactions I think are secondary at times to the kind of "overarching plot" in my personal experience although I guess people weren't sure about it for X or Y reason.

Anyway, I don't know, it's just all the silly Canadian humor or something (which isn't to say that kind of thing is restricted to such a country of course!), or just the impressive progress in graphics or the accessibility, it's just a really impressive series.

But like that's just me the random fan I don't really necessarily consider myself super knowlegeable but it definitely has been/was like an interesting game.

Logged

"I don't live by labels, I can be anything I want, I'd rather die a pauper than live on as someone else's fantasy!" - My best attempt at quoting the protagonist of Vandal Hearts 2.

I enjoyed the first two Mass Effect games and played them quite a bit. Mass Effect 3 doesn't still engender the hatred that it did. I think it's less that I've gotten over the ending and more that I've forgotten about this series very quickly. I had a talk with an RPGFan editor about Mass Effect the other day over Twitter...or tried to, because I couldn't remember the name of whatever alien race Garrus is, whatever alien race Mordin is, and whatever alien race Wrex is.

I don't think these games are gonna be ones that stick with me over the decades, man.

Heresy, I could rant about the lore of game but then again I am super nerd like that. To be fair, I'm sure I've replayed mass effect games far more than you. lol Ah, well. Just not your type of game.

I'll agree with the OP that Mass Effect 3 has a lot of tension and builded up to an ending that people couldn't accept for various reasons. But for the most part, its overblown and ME 3 got a bad rap for no good reason. Its still probably my favorite in the series. It definitely has the best combat in the series and some of the best storylines such as Tuchanka and Rannoch.

For me, personally, I really enjoyed the mass effect series. I'll remember it and replay it again some time in the future no doubt. (Will probably replay at least ME 3 when the release date for the new ME game comes closer).

I recently replayed the ME trilogy, and I liked ME3 a lot more than I remember. I've always heralded ME2 as one of the best sci-fi games ever made, but ME3 is right there too. If you remove the ending controversy, it's just so immense and full of things to do, some amazing story lines and dialog, and is just infinitely immersive.

This time I tried it with the merge ending, which I never really hear about. To my surprise, it's the "happy ending" I think everyone wanted, and makes the most amount of sense. I hear people complain that "Shepard would never allow humanity to merge with synthetics", but I just don't buy that at all. The entire series has been about bringing civilizations together, both organic and synthetic. When faced with this "ultimate problem" that organics and synthetics will always annihilate each other (as ridiculous as that sounds), in their game universe, if you really face that as the reality, the merge option makes a lot of sense.

But at the same time I think that the gaming community, myself included, wasn't really interested in having the series culminate in such a universe-changing problem. Honestly, I'm not a fan, it felt forced. The main theme of the game was bringing peoples together to overcome an insurmountable foe, and I feel like it would have been simpler and more effective to just play that out.

This time I tried it with the merge ending, which I never really hear about. To my surprise, it's the "happy ending" I think everyone wanted, and makes the most amount of sense. I hear people complain that "Shepard would never allow humanity to merge with synthetics", but I just don't buy that at all. The entire series has been about bringing civilizations together, both organic and synthetic. When faced with this "ultimate problem" that organics and synthetics will always annihilate each other (as ridiculous as that sounds), in their game universe, if you really face that as the reality, the merge option makes a lot of sense.

Biggest problem with synthesis ending is that Shepard rejected the idea back in ME1. Well or maybe the biggest problem is that Shepard is just unilaterally deciding what's best for everyone in the galaxy. That random primitive tribe that has never even thought of technology beyond a bow and arrow on some undiscovered planet? They now have to live with techno organic parts. Although I know for other people the problem is the whole space magic aspect of it. Also for synthesis to make any sense, you have to accept Starbrat's claims that he is right. If you believe him to be full of hot air then synthesis is the solution to a non-existent problem. >.>

I don't know ending aside I was just really entertained by the game, I felt like it had everything Bioware gamey lots of jokes drama, epic, sad, everything it was a pretty special game I thought all things considered.

Dang sexy Canadiens and their charming.... charms.

« Last Edit: June 30, 2016, 08:18:12 AM by Artimicia »

Logged

"I don't live by labels, I can be anything I want, I'd rather die a pauper than live on as someone else's fantasy!" - My best attempt at quoting the protagonist of Vandal Hearts 2.

Biggest problem with synthesis ending is that Shepard rejected the idea back in ME1.

I keep hearing this, but I'm not sure what part of ME1 you're referring to. And even so, at the point of ME1, Shepard has no where near the knowledge to make an informed decision on the matter. The information learned during ME3 really could change a person's decision, even if they had previously thought otherwise.

B) Star Kid "being full of hot air" really isn't a concern. Either he's all out lying, or he's correct. From what he claims, he's been around long enough to make a very knowledgable assessment of the situation. Either, he has a totally ulterior motive and is lying to you to make you do something, or he's telling the truth and probably is far more informed to make a judgement call than you are. Given that the choice you are given has three extremely different outcomes, it's hard to imagine how any ulterior motive would survive in all three situations, so given that, I think the chances are, he's telling the truth, and probably should be taken at his word.

I'm not saying that it was by any means a great plot twist or story telling, but from an internal perspective, given the information we have, I can understand the choices we're given.

Biggest problem with synthesis ending is that Shepard rejected the idea back in ME1.

I keep hearing this, but I'm not sure what part of ME1 you're referring to. And even so, at the point of ME1, Shepard has no where near the knowledge to make an informed decision on the matter. The information learned during ME3 really could change a person's decision, even if they had previously thought otherwise.

B) Star Kid "being full of hot air" really isn't a concern. Either he's all out lying, or he's correct. From what he claims, he's been around long enough to make a very knowledgable assessment of the situation. Either, he has a totally ulterior motive and is lying to you to make you do something, or he's telling the truth and probably is far more informed to make a judgement call than you are. Given that the choice you are given has three extremely different outcomes, it's hard to imagine how any ulterior motive would survive in all three situations, so given that, I think the chances are, he's telling the truth, and probably should be taken at his word.

I'm not saying that it was by any means a great plot twist or story telling, but from an internal perspective, given the information we have, I can understand the choices we're given.

1. Saren's whole thing in ME1 was about working with the reapers to ensure our survival because we can't win. I can't immediately find a quote stating that this would result in organic technological hybrids, but I know that was my impression considering that he gets implanted with fancy reaper tech for his service (which turns him into the final boss). And he drones on about "I'm forging an alliance between us and the Reapers, between organics and machines..."

2. I don't care how long he has been around. He is wrong, and ME3 reinforces that he is wrong prior to him showing up. And no matter which of his choices you choose, you are still trusting a malfunctioning A.I. (killing is saving!) that what he says is true. Shepard has no way of knowing whether the starbrat is telling the truth, and it is the enemy commander, so it isn't like there is any real reason to trust him.

"Joining the Reapers" is nothing like what Star Kid is saying. The Reapers aren't the ultimate problem, they're simply a tool to "correct" the problem. They pretty much vanish or shut down, as they are deprived of their purpose. While Shepard does say he would never join with the Reapers (as he shouldn't), they're a specific enemy attacking all life... but that doesn't preclude him from considering the joining of organics and machines to sort out a much larger problem.

Secondly, Star Kid didn't create or control the Reapers, the Leviathans did. Star Kid is simply able to correct the problem in a different way than the repairs are. In fact, I don't think they really have much of anything to do with each other. To me, it seems like he's saying that organics would have wiped each other out long ago if the Reapers hadn't been there to do their culling. He's there to solve a bigger problem, one the Reapers are a part of, but nowhere near the whole.

Look, I hate the Star Kid/Catalyst twist too, it's way outside the scope of the rest of the series, and sloppy, and forces you to make a bunch of leaps. But, I'm not sure it's wrong for the exact reasons you're saying. You seem to be relying on the assumption that Star Kid and the Reapers are connected, which there's no evidence that they are, and therefor, I don't think the "faulty" point is particularly valid.

"Joining the Reapers" is nothing like what Star Kid is saying. The Reapers aren't the ultimate problem, they're simply a tool to "correct" the problem. They pretty much vanish or shut down, as they are deprived of their purpose. While Shepard does say he would never join with the Reapers (as he shouldn't), they're a specific enemy attacking all life... but that doesn't preclude him from considering the joining of organics and machines to sort out a much larger problem.

Secondly, Star Kid didn't create or control the Reapers, the Leviathans did. Star Kid is simply able to correct the problem in a different way than the repairs are. In fact, I don't think they really have much of anything to do with each other. To me, it seems like he's saying that organics would have wiped each other out long ago if the Reapers hadn't been there to do their culling. He's there to solve a bigger problem, one the Reapers are a part of, but nowhere near the whole.

Look, I hate the Star Kid/Catalyst twist too, it's way outside the scope of the rest of the series, and sloppy, and forces you to make a bunch of leaps. But, I'm not sure it's wrong for the exact reasons you're saying. You seem to be relying on the assumption that Star Kid and the Reapers are connected, which there's no evidence that they are, and therefor, I don't think the "faulty" point is particularly valid.

-A problem that doesn't exist unless you accept the concept of the technological singularity which I do not and nothing forced Shepard to do so until the last 5 min of the game.

-And Starbrat disagress with you regarding the Reapers:

"Shepard: I need to stop the Reapers, do you know how I can do that?

Catalyst: Perhaps. I control the Reapers. They are my solution."

He is totally connected to them. He is essentially their boss and he states as such. Sure he didn't physically create them since he is an A.I., but he is the one who gave them their purpose.

Personally, I liked the original ending that implied the mass relays were destroyed. It gave the ending a bittersweet feeling. But of course, a depressing ending upset the fan base too much. Meh.

As for the Star-child, it was like Deus Ex endings. Press a button and get an ambiguous ending. Doesn't bug me much in Deus Ex and didn't bug me much with Mass Effect. I feel the journey of a game is more important than the ending and I didn't even think the ending was bad.

Clearly, most fans don't agree with me so I'll go sit in the corner alone.

The problem with Mass Effect 3's ending is that Mass Effect 3's ending is wrong. That's really the only way I can describe it. There's a list of things wrong with it that you can list that the writer just isn't supposed to do, like don't introduce information that alters the nature of the setting/story AFTER the climax of the story, no deus ex machina (both figurative and literal... the Catalyst is LITERALLY "god in a machine"), don't use your ending to resolve a conflict that your story was never about up to that point (organics vs synthetics was never the focal point of Mass Effect), etc.

But all that aside? Mass Effect 3's ending is wrong because the central thesis that acts as the prompt for the ending is wrong. If you want a perfect microcosm for what Mass Effect as a trilogy was about, look no further than the famous Suicide Mission from the end of Mass Effect 2. Both from a mechanical perspective and a thematic perspective, it's EVERYTHING that is Mass Effect. Mechanically it's all about player choice and consequence. Thematically it's a scenario where the various inhabitants of the galaxy, all of whom have some kind of beef with each other (Turians vs. Humans, Quarians vs. Geth, Krogan vs Salarians, etc), put aside their differences and work together to do what everyone says throughout the entire game cannot be done. That central theme of unity, of the differences that divide us becoming our greatest strength when we work together, and using it to achieve the impossible, THAT is Mass Effect.

But then, completely out of left field, the Catalyst tells you not only can you NOT achieve the impossible by working together, but you in fact CANNOT put aside your differences. Turns out organics and synthetics can NEVER truly get along. In fact, the differences between organic and synthetic life is so completely irreconcilable that the only way that the two WON'T wipe each other out at some point is with the intervention of SPACE MAGIC. Shepard, and by extension, you, are not allowed to refute this. Despite all the evidence throughout the series (never mind Mass Effect 3 itself) to the contrary, we are simply meant to accept it as true, and the three possible endings you are left with are completely based on the assumption that it totally IS true. So to reiterate, Mass Effect 3's ending sucks because Mass Effect 3's ending is wrong.